29.01.2015 Views

Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Appendix A<br />

PURVES TODD: Thank you very much.<br />

CHIP CAMERON: You're welcome.<br />

A-3 PURVES TODD: I'm here today and I'm going to speak in favor of the Monticello Nuclear Plant<br />

being extended, because I believe that if the Monticello plant has to be shut down in 2010, it will<br />

have an adverse effect on central Minnesota. And I think now I want to thank Kirstie Marone for<br />

her article on the Monticello Nuclear Plant. It was very well explained in here (indicating) what<br />

the plant had done, and it's a very good article for this area.<br />

A-4 The other thing I want to talk about is to be able to congratulate the people in Monticello that<br />

had the foresight to allow NSP to build this facility in the first place. Because myself, I think I<br />

was probably a little bit critical at the time that it was being proposed-we really didn't<br />

understand what nuclear energy was all about-where today I'm almost on the other side that I<br />

think we have to expand nuclear energy all over the United States. In fact, I'm thinking we<br />

probably will need at least 500 nuclear plants by this 2030 date, so I can see that you're going<br />

to be a very busy group here trying to get that accomplished. And the reason that I say that is<br />

there is no reason-no way that we can get from a 15-trillion- to 20-trillion-dollar economy in<br />

this country without nuclear power.<br />

A-5 And then, finally, I think that I want to explain a little bit on the natural gas and oil question that I<br />

had, because I feel that with using that in Minnesota, it puts us at a disadvantage, because this<br />

last winter our natural gas costs went up 30 percent-and not necessarily because of the<br />

gas-fired plants that have already been built around the country, Katrina definitely caused some<br />

problems with it, but it's just not a good source for generating electricity in Minnesota..<br />

Thank you very much.<br />

CHIP CAMERON: Thank you, Mr. Todd. And we're going to go Mr. Rick Jacobs at this point,<br />

and-Mr. Jacobs is the Site Director at the Monticello facility.<br />

(Off the record discussion.)<br />

CHIP CAMERON: Okay. Let me find out: Does anybody else want to make a comment at this<br />

point<br />

(No response.)<br />

Okay. And Rick, it's totally up to you. We're having another meeting tonight, and if there are<br />

some comments that the site wants to submit, we can do it at that time.<br />

RICK JACOBS: Okay.<br />

August 2006 A-63 NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 1

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!